Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not going to get into neighborhood-by-neighborhood comparison (there is no Manhattan equivalent of Wicker Park, for example). To find Chicago's functional equivalent of Manhattan below 96th, you'd probably want to consider my previously outlined definition of Downtown Chicago, and extend it north through Lakeview. That area is geographically similar in size to Manhattan, below 96th. It's incredibly dense, vibrant and filled with amenities. Not that Chicago WOULD rival Manhattan's densities, it's important to understand that it CAN'T. Chicago's zoning forbids attached buildings.
Well I personally wouldn't consider anything in Chicago north of Division to be "incredibly dense, vibrant and filled with amenities". Maybe by average American city standards, but certainly not by NYC standards. I actually find Chicago's vibrancy vastly overrated by its residents (both DT and in the neighborhoods). I was shocked by how sleepy Chicago's north side felt when I spent a day walking from Downtown through Lincoln Park and Lakeview on my last visit during the Fourth of July weekend last year. The only place where I saw a large concentration of people was the North Avenue Beach. There were trickles of people around major intersections, but otherwise it was just sprawl. What shocked me was that even the main retail corridors were pretty empty. As for Wicker Park -- cool neighborhood, but virtually every neighborhood in Manhattan south of 23rd street (and many in Brooklyn) are more vibrant, interesting and happening.
So yeah, sure, you can draw an area of Chicago that is "geographically similar" to Manhattan but the portion of it that delivers anything close to what your average Manhattan neighborhood delivers is very small. That's my point.
Well I personally wouldn't consider anything in Chicago north of Division to be "incredibly dense, vibrant and filled with amenities". Maybe by average American city standards, but certainly not by NYC standards. I actually find Chicago's vibrancy vastly overrated by its residents (both DT and in the neighborhoods). I was shocked by how sleepy Chicago's north side felt when I spent a day walking from Downtown through Lincoln Park and Lakeview on my last visit during the Fourth of July weekend last year. The only place where I saw a large concentration of people was the North Avenue Beach. There were trickles of people around major intersections, but otherwise it was just sprawl. What shocked me was that even the main retail corridors were pretty empty. As for Wicker Park -- cool neighborhood, but virtually every neighborhood in Manhattan south of 23rd street (and many in Brooklyn) are more vibrant, interesting and happening.
So yeah, sure, you can draw an area of Chicago that is "geographically similar" to Manhattan but the portion of it that delivers anything close to what your average Manhattan neighborhood delivers is very small. That's my point.
If you want to pick at nits, the same could be said of Murray Hill, Midtown, east of 5th Ave, Yorkville and much of the UWS. I don't think an afternoon stroll on a holiday weekend gives an accurate assessment of a city's vibrancy. I also wholeheartedly disagree with anyone who uses the word "sprawl" to describe that part of the city. I suspect that you may be trolling.
I have no problem with anyone preferring Chicago to NY, but you have to compare apples to apples. If you want to say that the more appropriate comparison is DT Chicago to just Midtown, fine. But then tell me -- what is Chicago's answer to the Village, Soho, or the LES? What is its answer to the Meatpacking District and Chelsea? What is its answer to the UES and the UWS? It's got none. The truth (from my experience at least) is that Chicago's best neighborhoods outside of DT are quite unremarkable by NYC standards. The only part of Chicago that has the retail, entertainment and cultural density comparable to anywhere in Manhattan south of 96th street is Downtown (and it might actually include a smaller area than you outlined). That's why if you want to make a comparison of functionally equivalent areas then NYC's equivalent to DT Chicago IMO is everything from UES and UWS down. Conversely, if the question is what is Chicago's equivalent to Manhattan then it would be a real stretch to draw the boundaries any wider than the 2-3 sq mile area of DT Chicago. That comparison obviously becomes very lopsided but it merely magnifies the general gap in size, density and energy level between Chicago and NYC, which is immense.
^^^^ This is basically what I was trying to say earlier. I may have not worded it in the best way though.
The way other cities define "Downtown" is the CBD and other nearby districts with museums/cultural institutions, restaurants, parks, nightlife, other forms of entertainment, etc.
NYC's answer to this would be what NYers call "the city", Manhattan south of ~96th street. It makes a lot more sense than splitting up Downtown and Midtown or ignoring the villages, Chelsea, LES, SoHo, TeiBeCa, etc.
Those neighborhoods are the true "core" of NYC IMO. Yeah Midtown and Fidi are where most people work, but as others have said many NYers don't care to hang out there at all. Many people actually try to avoid Midtown or Fidi whenever possible
I have lived in both cities, so I'll just chime in (even though this thread topic is decades old):
a) Chicago is much smaller than New York but not "shockingly" small. They are both massive, monster cities. That goes for both DT Manhattan and DT Chicago. Manhattan's is much larger, but Chicago's is still huge.
b) It's a bit ridiculous to compare all of Manhattan to DT Chicago. Manhattan is an entire borough, and a massive one at that. Are we talking Midtown, the Financial District? While I love Chicago to death, I prefer nearly all of Manhattan because it just has so much more than any other city. But I hate Midtown and (personally) don't like Lower Manhattan, and I think Chicago's Loop is much more pleasant and nice than those two parts of the city. Less annoying tourists, I love Millenium Park, I love the beautiful Lake. Midtown has Times Square, FEH! But Chicago doesn't have anything like Soho, Tribecca, Chelsea, etc.
c) DT Chicago has a much better waterfront by far.
d) The shopping is much better in Manhattan overall because it's a fashion capitol.
Yes, all say Manhattan wins. It was DOA for any cities core vs ALL MANHATTAN. But CHICAGO STILL PACKS A LOT INTO ITS DOWNTOWN. EVERYTHING A CORE SHOULD BE.
Manhattan is 33.77 square miles. It is 13.4 miles long and 2.3 miles wide at its widest point.
Chicago Loop is 1.58 sq miles. Official the city defines its "Central Business District" as more then double.
So that pushes it to OFFICALLY closer to a 4 sq/mi. area
Really many keeping Chicago's core just the Loop don't even give it a fair chance if you use ALL Manhattan.
It is difficult to define "Downtown Chicago". Everyone seems to have their own definition, the most narrow of which includes The Loop, Streeterville, and River North; and the most broad of which includes the South Loop, Gold Coast, West Loop, Near South Side, Old Town, River West, Greektown, River East, and Lincoln Park. Here is a breakdown of some of the specific neighborhoods within "Downtown". The Loop (defined as the Chicago River to the north, Lake Michigan to the east, Congress Pkwy to the South, and Canal to the West) is 2.021 square miles. River North (defined as Chicago Avenue to the north, Chicago River to the West and South, and Clark Street to the East) is .446 square miles. Streeterville (defined as Oak Street to the north, Michigan Ave to the west, Lake Michigan to the East, and Ohio to the South) is .317 square miles Gold Coast (defined as Clark to the west, Lake Michigan to the east, North Ave to the north, and Oak St to the south) is .388 square miles. West Loop (Roosevelt to the south, Halsted to the west, Canal to the east, and Lake to the north) is .731 square miles.
^^^Overall, the area one may reasonably consider to be "Downtown Chicago " can be as large as 8 square miles.
* It is very unfair for many here to keep it on the Loop for Chicago's downtown vs. All Manhattan Island for NYC's downtown. ITS LIKE A STATE VS A WHOLE NATION IN AREA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
I'm not going to get into neighborhood-by-neighborhood comparison (there is no Manhattan equivalent of Wicker Park, for example). To find Chicago's functional equivalent of Manhattan below 96th, you'd probably want to consider my previously outlined definition of Downtown Chicago, and extend it north through Lakeview. That area is geographically similar in size to Manhattan, below 96th. It's incredibly dense, vibrant and filled with amenities. Not that Chicago WOULD rival Manhattan's densities, it's important to understand that it CAN'T. Chicago's zoning forbids attached buildings.
Yes, even today in Manhattan you cannot build the close tight housing with no setbacks. But Chicago had this since it rebuilt after the Great Fire.
Chicago still packs a punch into its core. From Shopping to its lakefront of parks, harbors, and beaches. With high-rise to skyscraper living packing VIEWS as awesome as Manhattan.
^^^^ This is basically what I was trying to say earlier. I may have not worded it in the best way though.
The way other cities define "Downtown" is the CBD and other nearby districts with museums/cultural institutions, restaurants, parks, nightlife, other forms of entertainment, etc.
NYC's answer to this would be what NYers call "the city", Manhattan south of ~96th street. It makes a lot more sense than splitting up Downtown and Midtown or ignoring the villages, Chelsea, LES, SoHo, TeiBeCa, etc.
Those neighborhoods are the true "core" of NYC IMO. Yeah Midtown and Fidi are where most people work, but as others have said many NYers don't care to hang out there at all. Many people actually try to avoid Midtown or Fidi whenever possible
I think part of the problem is semantics. We need to get away from obsessing about "Downtowns" and focus on what most of the rest of the world calls "city center". In my mind a "city center" is a functional concept that denotes an area with (i) high office density AND/OR (ii) high residential and structural density coupled with extensive mixed use and a dense concentration of retail, entertainment (shopping/dining/nightlife) and cultural amenities.
In NYC, if one asks what is its city center the answer is clearly Manhattan, roughly south of 96th street. In Chicago, I am not quite sure... but, based on my experience, I wouldn't include much outside of Downtown. The character of neighborhoods like Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Wicker Park etc -- predominantly residential, mostly detached housing 3-5 stories, and mixed use limited almost entirely to the retail corridors -- doesn't give off a city center-like vibe. Maybe you could include Lincoln Park (the park itself) and a few blocks around it if you wanted to be generous, but that's about it. In that sense, Chicago's city center -- comparable in size to D.C., SF and Philly -- is actually pretty small for a city of 2.7 million people and a metro of 9.5m people.
I think part of the problem is semantics. We need to get away from obsessing about "Downtowns" and focus on what most of the rest of the world calls "city center". In my mind a "city center" is a functional concept that denotes an area with (i) high office density AND/OR (ii) high residential and structural density coupled with extensive mixed use and a dense concentration of retail, entertainment (shopping/dining/nightlife) and cultural amenities.
In NYC, if one asks what is its city center the answer is clearly Manhattan, roughly south of 96th street. In Chicago, I am not quite sure... but, based on my experience, I wouldn't include much outside of Downtown. The character of neighborhoods like Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Wicker Park etc -- predominantly residential, mostly detached housing 3-5 stories, and mixed use limited almost entirely to the retail corridors -- doesn't give off a city center-like vibe. Maybe you could include Lincoln Park (the park itself) and a few blocks around it if you wanted to be generous, but that's about it. In that sense, Chicago's city center -- comparable in size to D.C., SF and Philly -- is actually pretty small for a city of 2.7 million people and a metro of 9.5m people.
Manhattan has many neighborhoods between Midtown and Lower-Manhattan. Still people merely use the Loop as Chicago's downtown. It is more then double that defined officially by the city.
No one claims Chicago's core sprawls. But it has its grand front lawn of parks and vistas from them, the whole lakefront and river. It packs a huge punch in its core that hits EVERY Bell and whistle that a Downtown should be. It lacks in NOTHING. I do believe that.
Manhattan is a beast of everything and no other city built its tenements for its masses packed in. But more then just true core regions of Midtown and Lower-Manhattan. Much is residential neighborhoods. Really if you use ALL Manhattan, we should have a Greater Downtown Chicago used and core of its key neighborhoods too. But this thread will go on with it merely Manhattan crushes Downtown Chicago for pages and now ----> a Chicago's core packs way below its proper weight from you? I DISAGREE THERE. What lessening is left?
I never heard Chicago's core called as if it packs BELOW its weight among cities...
I think part of the problem is semantics. We need to get away from obsessing about "Downtowns" and focus on what most of the rest of the world calls "city center". In my mind a "city center" is a functional concept that denotes an area with (i) high office density AND/OR (ii) high residential and structural density coupled with extensive mixed use and a dense concentration of retail, entertainment (shopping/dining/nightlife) and cultural amenities.
In NYC, if one asks what is its city center the answer is clearly Manhattan, roughly south of 96th street. In Chicago, I am not quite sure... but, based on my experience, I wouldn't include much outside of Downtown. The character of neighborhoods like Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Wicker Park etc -- predominantly residential, mostly detached housing 3-5 stories, and mixed use limited almost entirely to the retail corridors -- doesn't give off a city center-like vibe. Maybe you could include Lincoln Park (the park itself) and a few blocks around it if you wanted to be generous, but that's about it. In that sense, Chicago's city center -- comparable in size to D.C., SF and Philly -- is actually pretty small for a city of 2.7 million people and a metro of 9.5m people.
Other than housing density, I don't see what makes Lakeview is any less urban than UWS or Lincoln Park less urban than the West Village. If Chicago single-family homes were terraced like brownstones, you wouldn't wouldn't question the urbanity, but there's an 8 foot gap between the buildings. Where the LES might have blocks filled with connected five-unit tenement buildings, Wicker Park might have a block of detached three-flats.
Well I personally wouldn't consider anything in Chicago north of Division to be "incredibly dense, vibrant and filled with amenities". Maybe by average American city standards, but certainly not by NYC standards. I actually find Chicago's vibrancy vastly overrated by its residents (both DT and in the neighborhoods). I was shocked by how sleepy Chicago's north side felt when I spent a day walking from Downtown through Lincoln Park and Lakeview on my last visit during the Fourth of July weekend last year. The only place where I saw a large concentration of people was the North Avenue Beach. There were trickles of people around major intersections, but otherwise it was just sprawl. What shocked me was that even the main retail corridors were pretty empty. As for Wicker Park -- cool neighborhood, but virtually every neighborhood in Manhattan south of 23rd street (and many in Brooklyn) are more vibrant, interesting and happening.
So yeah, sure, you can draw an area of Chicago that is "geographically similar" to Manhattan but the portion of it that delivers anything close to what your average Manhattan neighborhood delivers is very small. That's my point.
Yeah, I definitely don't think the north side neighborhoods are as vibrant as what you will see in NYC, but by a lot of other cities standards they are vibrant. In the summer time especially, there are certain sections/stretches of the north side that can get really vibrant. It is interesting that you mention that you visited on the Fourth of July weekend because my girlfriend visited on that weekend last year and we both commented about how dead the city seemed. Don't know if people just went out of town or what, but I never remembered it being that non-lively. If you check it out on a non-holiday weekend, it is relatively lively but it most areas probably won't compare with NYC.
Other than housing density, I don't see what makes Lakeview is any less urban than UWS or Lincoln Park less urban than the West Village. If Chicago single-family homes were terraced like brownstones, you wouldn't wouldn't question the urbanity, but there's an 8 foot gap between the buildings. Where the LES might have blocks filled with connected five-unit tenement buildings, Wicker Park might have a block of detached three-flats.
Hmm ok. Well you are comparing neighborhoods with a difference in residential density of more than 350%. Comparing Lincoln Park to the Village is like comparing Lincoln Park to Skokie. If I said that there is no difference in urbanity between LP and Skokie, would you agree with that statement? Really what's the difference other than housing density and a few extra feet between houses, right? I mean if you don't think that there is a difference in urbanity between a neighborhood with residential density of 79,000 psm (the Village) and 21,000 psm (LP), then you can't possibly think there is a difference between one with 21,000 psm and 6,400 psm (Skokie). Right?
Hmm ok. Well you are comparing neighborhoods with a difference in residential density of more than 350%. Comparing Lincoln Park to the Village is like comparing Lincoln Park to Skokie. If I said that there is no difference in urbanity between LP and Skokie, would you agree with that statement? Really what's the difference other than housing density and a few extra feet between houses, right? I mean if you don't think that there is a difference in urbanity between a neighborhood with residential density of 79,000 psm (the Village) and 21,000 psm (LP), then you can't possibly think there is a difference between one with 21,000 psm and 6,400 psm (Skokie). Right?
You didn't get the memo.... Chicago after its Great Fire. Chose NO TENEMENTS would it do. It did not. Few DREAM of a tenement apartment. Though some want to experience a aspect of dense Manhattan.
But you all can't compare a Tree-Canopy with landscaped frontage Victorian or other of a Lincoln Park oe Lakeview. THEY ARE A CLASS-ACT NIGHBORHOOD where homes are multi-millions. Much of this area WAS HIGHER-END. The Tenements were built for the lowest classes.
They have their niche and value for a NY lifestyle today. BU I was raised among row-homes. Sometimes too much all around adds more problems then a dense but GREEN and PLEASANT WALKABILITY. Where your home IS YOUR MANSION. You need not feel a sardine in a can and GREEN is not looking out your window or opening the front door. HUGE DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY......
Chicago chose NOT to build as NYC and needs not feel it was a mistake in any way.... We could boast the density of Hong Kong, Bangkok and Tokyo. But even them cities come across cleaner and newer many times then many parts of Manhattan. I know Chicago does....
Its neighborhoods are dense enough and older to satisfy.
Last edited by DavePa; 05-01-2018 at 07:10 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We could boast the density of Hong Kong, Bangkok and Tokyo. But even them cities come across cleaner and newer many times then many parts of Manhattan. I know Chicago does....
